On The Contrast Between Appearance And Reality

@Reconstructo,

Reconstructo;132985 wrote:

Our brain automatically isolates and frames qualia. When a human looks at the world, a human sees objects. It was Kant if not someone before him that suggested that objects as objects (and not as qualia) are created by the human mind. No one is here denying that there are causes outside us (a moon), but this moon is only a moon (singular consistent organization of qualia) because man automatically organizes qualia into objects. It's because this organization is so automatic that it is taken for an actual property of noumena or "reality."

No, again. The concept of an object is a creation of the mind. Not the object. You really have to make the distinction.

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;132987 wrote:

No, again. The concept of an object is a creation of the mind. Not the object. You really have to make the distinction.

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil. Albuquerque;132986 wrote:

Exactly and this is precisely why "reality" itself must be understood as a Unity and not a bunch of floating objects...

I agree. I think that's why Kant cooked up the "transcendental unity of apperception." Transcendental is just a euphemism for eternity. (Also Heidegger, who wrote the word Being and crossed it out, because the word wasn't lean and clean enough for what it wanted to describe...)

The eternal unity of perception. What do you think of the idea that there is only one number, that undergoes combination/subtraction. Couldn't binary code represent any quantity? I realize that in the usual sense of number, there are of course more than one--but does it boil down to 1. And note that the number one and the pronoun "I" are similar indeed. The I is one is timeless? Because unity is transcendental for humanity? Every object is a unity. Every object as object is a "one."

---------- Post added 02-26-2010 at 05:32 PM ----------

kennethamy;132987 wrote:

No, again. The concept of an object is a creation of the mind. Not the object. You really have to make the distinction.

Yes, "object" is a concept. But that's not the point. The point is that objects only become objects by means of concept. It's not they don't "exist." It's just that they don't exist as logical unities until conceptualized as such.

@Reconstructo,

Reconstructo;132990 wrote:

I agree. I think that's why Kant cooked up the "transcendental unity of apperception." Transcendental is just a euphemism for eternity. (Also Heidegger, who wrote the word Being and crossed it out, because the word wasn't lean and clean enough for what it wanted to describe...)

The eternal unity of perception. What do you think of the idea that there is only one number, that undergoes combination/subtraction. Couldn't binary code represent any quantity? I realize that in the usual sense of number, there are of course more than one--but does it boil down to 1. And note that the number one and the pronoun "I" are similar indeed. The I is one is timeless? Because unity is transcendental for humanity? Every object is a unity. Every object as object is a "one."

But of course !!! I thought you already knew that that is my strongest believe...this is why i speak in fake copy's of one, and in terms such like time and space simulation...

---------- Post added 02-26-2010 at 05:47 PM ----------

---------- Post added 02-26-2010 at 05:57 PM ----------

The million dollar question for me is how was ONE able to repeat himself, I mean phenomenologically (metaphor) ?

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;132987 wrote:

No, again. The concept of an object is a creation of the mind. Not the object. You really have to make the distinction.

When you see an object, do you think see the object itself or do you see the effects of the way your mind has conceptualized the object? I don't think I could see anything if my mind wasn't able to conceive what I was seeing, but it does, so I do. However, I wouldn't say that I actually see the object, because due to my limited sensory ability, I can only see what my mind conceives. My senses are limited.

You really don't have to make the distinction, as the distinction is only important if you believe that the inner consciousness is separate from the exterior world. When you realize that all consciousness can truly access is itself, then you realize that all of these descriptions of objects made by other people are merely the person's conception of it, or the way that they have conceived it. There is no one absolute conception in which all objects can exist without there being some sort of consciousness to conceive it.

Therefore the word truth is merely a way to describe similarities between peoples conceptions, which does exits.

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil. Albuquerque;132996 wrote:

But of course !!! I thought you already knew that that is my strongest believe...this is why i speak in fake copy's of one, and in terms such like time and space simulation...

Yeah, I thought so. In fact, your passion/ideas have pushed me in a great direction. I was so focused on verbal concept that I was neglecting to think of number as transcendental.

---------- Post added 02-26-2010 at 07:04 PM ----------

Fil. Albuquerque;132996 wrote:

From a numinous point of view, I completely agree. Noumenon is unknowable, but this unknowable is naturally conceive in the singular, which ties into the notion that there is only one number. We impose as many unities as we like, but we are always imposing unities, as I think a plurality is a unity of unities. (The number 69 represents one quantity. Does this explain why certain numbers are irrational, in that they are irrational for man who can only impose unities endlessly? This reminds me of Hegelian synthesis.)

@Reconstructo,

Reconstructo;133032 wrote:

Yeah, I thought so. In fact, your passion/ideas have pushed me in a great direction. I was so focused on verbal concept that I was neglecting to think of number as transcendental.

---------- Post added 02-26-2010 at 07:04 PM ----------

From a numinous point of view, I completely agree. Noumenon is unknowable, but this unknowable is naturally conceive in the singular, which ties into the notion that there is only one number. We impose as many unities as we like, but we are always imposing unities, as I think a plurality is a unity of unities. (The number 69 represents one quantity. Does this explain why certain numbers are irrational, in that they are irrational for man who can only impose unities endlessly? This reminds me of Hegelian synthesis.)

Would you say that noumenon is completely unknowable, or that our perception of it is limited? I fear if the case is that it is unknowable then we'd be forced into solipsism, but we obviously have some access to it, some more than others.

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil. Albuquerque;132996 wrote:

The million dollar question for me is how was ONE able to repeat himself, I mean phenomenologically (metaphor) ?

For me, this is indeed a difficult question. I'm coming a transcendental standpoint that the ONE is a reflection of man-as-synthesis or man-as-concept. It just occurred to me that Jung always stressed that the circle was the archetype for self. I think we are dealing with the transcendental self, the unity of unities. Where it all came from remains, for me, a mystery. I suppose I experience this theme as man becoming conscious of himself as transcendental. For me it's the sum of Kant and Hegel. Perhaps "absolute knowledge" is nothing but the complete self-consciousness of a transcendental being, but only in-so-far as he is transcendental. To account for a transcendental numen is to explain the eros that drives (in-spires) transcendental self-consciousness.

Note to others: this isn't nearly as mystical as it sounds. Transcendental is not transcendent. Numinous is not supernatural. But the transcendental and the numinous are probably the source of much religion.

---------- Post added 02-26-2010 at 07:19 PM ----------

MMP2506;133039 wrote:

Would you say that noumenon is completely unknowable, or that our perception of it is limited? I fear if the case is that it is unknowable then we'd be forced into solipsism, but we obviously have some access to it, some more than others.

Yes, it's a tricky concept. Kant needed the idea of some shared underlying reality to ground objectivity, but he also needed the transcendental categories. His solution was to present noumena as a limiting concept. Noumena is an X that is meant to remind us that the reality we experience is always pre-processed. We can conceive of noumena only by affixing negation. Noumena is the un-processed ground of being.

As far as solipsism goes, there is a strong argument against it. Namely, that language is created socially. I suppose a clever person could dream up some arguments for solipsism that might not be answerable...but solipsism is not the sincere position of a sane man, in my opinion. It is quite an interesting concept to play with, however. Noumena is actually what keeps experience from being solipsistic. The appearance/reality distinction is what keeps private experience from being 200 proof reality.

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;132987 wrote:

No, again. The concept of an object is a creation of the mind. Not the object. You really have to make the distinction.

You say that what we humans call 'the moon' exists, logically, prior to our experience of 'the moon'. But upon what basis can we say that the moon exists prior to human knowledge? Philosophy asks the most basic questions. What right do you have to state that 'the moon' exists independently of human knowledge? This is a Cartesian dissection without reference to any duality. You must furnish us with a philosophical basis upon which the absolute moon exists.

And if you are really saying the moon exists outside of human beings and human knowledge then you are indeed suggesting that the moon is an absolutely, independently existing object.

So you have disproved the whole of metaphysics! But you must provide a philosophical basis for such a refutation. Such a refutation must provide reasons. To understand the nature of reality or the physical world one must undertake a philosophical investigation of things. To say that the moon exists outside of human knowledge and perception you must furnish us with the foundation of such a claim, for every philosophy carries with it at least an implicit metaphysics. That is an ultimate basis upon with one erects one's theories.

Philosophy is different than getting up out of bed everday and doing normal things like getting a cup of coffee. You must distinguish between the ordinary world of everyday human existence and the world of epistemological inquiry and metaphysical investigations.

--

@MMP2506,

MMP2506;133039 wrote:

Would you say that noumenon is completely unknowable, or that our perception of it is limited? I fear if the case is that it is unknowable then we'd be forced into solipsism, but we obviously have some access to it, some more than others.

I think the concept that our perceptions of reality and our categories of mental constuction (time, space, causality) do not completely capture "reality" (i.e. give us o0nly a limited and partial view) is valuable in inducing humility and opening our minds to possiblities beyond the realm of direct sensory experience and empirical scientific demonstration.

One should not dismiss the power and predictive capability of our knowledge or the fact that it must correspond (truth as correspondence) to reality in many and powerful ways. Our knowledge is not complete and total but it is powerful and predictive and not to be dismissed as solipism in any way. The problem comes in asserting that scientific empiricism and sensory experience are the only sources of truth and of knowledge and that they give us a complete and total picture of ultimate "reality".

@prothero,

prothero;133127 wrote:

I think the concept that our perceptions of reality and our categories of mental constuction (time, space, causality) do not completely capture "reality" (i.e. give us o0nly a limited and partial view) is valuable in inducing humility and opening our minds to possiblities beyond the realm of direct sensory experience and empirical scientific demonstration.

One should not dismiss the power and predictive capability of our knowledge or the fact that it must correspond (truth as correspondence) to reality in many and powerful ways. Our knowledge is not complete and total but it is powerful and predictive and not to be dismissed as solipism in any way. The problem comes in asserting that scientific empiricism and sensory experience are the only sources of truth and of knowledge and that they give us a complete and total picture of ultimate "reality".

Well of course, reality is something that is not completely comprehendable by almost all, but I think some get closer to it than others, and those who do are the more intuitive of the many.

@MMP2506,

MMP2506;133008 wrote:

When you see an object, do you think see the object itself or do you see the effects of the way your mind has conceptualized the object? I don't think I could see anything if my mind wasn't able to conceive what I was seeing, but it does, so I do. However, I wouldn't say that I actually see the object, because due to my limited sensory ability, I can only see what my mind conceives. My senses are limited.

You really don't have to make the distinction, as the distinction is only important if you believe that the inner consciousness is separate from the exterior world. When you realize that all consciousness can truly access is itself, then you realize that all of these descriptions of objects made by other people are merely the person's conception of it, or the way that they have conceived it. There is no one absolute conception in which all objects can exist without there being some sort of consciousness to conceive it.

Therefore the word truth is merely a way to describe similarities between peoples conceptions, which does exits.

I certainly do not see any physiological effects of the object. I see the object. It is the physiological effects of the object on my visual apparatus that causes me to see the object. Just as it is the audible effects of the bell on my hearing apparatus that causes me to hear the bell ringing.

Of course we cannot have any conception at all unless there is consciousness. I agree with that. I don't know what an "absolute conception" is. But conceptions of any kind are mind-dependent.

I don't think that truth is what you describe it as being, but I don't think I understand that description. And I don't know about the "therefore" either. People, after all can have similar conceptions, and those conceptions may be false. People had similar conceptions about the shape of Earth, and all those conceptions were wrong when they were that Earth was flat.

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;133145 wrote:

I certainly do not see any physiological effects of the object. I see the object. It is the physiological effects of the object on my visual apparatus that causes me to see the object.

But how do you separate the objects, and the effects, ultimately? If there we no physiological effects, there would be no object, and if there were no object, there would be no physiological effects, would there? Of course it is true to say that I can have an idea which doesn't correspond with reality. I can believe in unicorns, when there are no such critters. But in the case of horses, which we agree do exist, how is the horse ultimately separable from my experience of a horse? As Descartes said, we could all be under the influence of an evil demon who causes us all to see horses where there are none. Your repeated insistence that there really is a horse does not really amount to a rebuttal of skepticism, does it?

I refer to a quote I mentioned earlier, regarding the agreement of perception and reality:

Quote:

According to [correspondence] theory, truth consists in the agreement of our thought with reality. This view ... seems to conform rather closely to our ordinary common sense usage when we speak of truth. The flaws in the definition arise when we ask what is meant by "agreement" or "correspondence" of ideas and objects, beliefs and facts, thought and reality. In order to test the truth of an idea or belief we must presumably compare it with the reality in some sense.

1. In order to make the comparison, we must know what it is that we are comparing, namely, the belief on the one hand and the reality on the other. But if we already know the reality, why do we need to make a comparison? And if we don't know the reality, how can we make a comparison?

2. The making of the comparison is itself a fact about which we have a belief. We have to believe that the belief about the comparison is true. How do we know that our belief in this agreement is "true"? This leads to an infinite regress, leaving us with no assurance of true belief.

Brightman, E. S.; Philosophy of Religion, Ch4.

So it seems to me that throughout this argument, and indeed every metaphysical debate on the forum, your basic position is that 'objects of perception are real, and if you disagree with this, there must be something wrong with your viewpoint'. It could be said that your position always assumes what philosophy sets out to prove, namely, the reality of objects of perception. If you are not capable of questioning whether your ordinary experience of the world is in fact illusory, then what does philosophy consist of, for you?

@jeeprs,

jeeprs;133155 wrote:

If there we no physiological effects, there would be no object,

I wonder why you would say this. You must mean that if there were no physiological effects, we would not know about the object. Not that there would be no object.

@Pythagorean,

But what do we know of the object WITHOUT any 'physiological effects'? What would you know about it, whilst dead, for example?

@jeeprs,

jeeprs;133162 wrote:

But what do we know of the object WITHOUT any 'physiological effects'? What would you know about it, whilst dead, for example?

But what has that to do with the existence of that object? Of course, all objects have effects, (gravitational, etc.) but they need not be on anyone who could be aware of them. Who is dead? I cannot know of anything if I am dead. I don't understand what you are driving at. Perhaps because the answers to your questions are so obvious.

@kennethamy,

Another remark to ad:

...An incomplete description of an Object could only refer to it by the Noumenon and symbolically, otherwise you would in fact be referring to something, that only you in yourself could have finished, a concept...(Identity recognition requires perfection)

@jeeprs,

jeeprs;133155 wrote:

So it seems to me that throughout this argument, and indeed every metaphysical debate on the forum, your basic position is that 'objects of perception are real, and if you disagree with this, there must be something wrong with your viewpoint'. It could be said that your position always assumes what philosophy sets out to prove, namely, the reality of objects of perception. If you are not capable of questioning whether your ordinary experience of the world is in fact illusory, then what does philosophy consist of, for you?

I am sorry you feel that way. My mother raised me to tell nothing but the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

I think that if it is believed that "the objects of perception" are an illusion, it ought to be argued by those who believe such a thing. Why is the burden of proof put on those who do not think such a thing is true? I don't think it is the task of philosophy to prove something is not true that is not argued for. It is, it seems to me, prima-facie true that there are objects. If you have some argument(s) that there are not, then "bring 'em on".

It seems to me that the proposition, "there are objects" is presumed innocent until proven guilty. As in every court of law, the presumption of innocence has to be defeated by the prosecution. As the lawyers say, it is the prosecution that has to "go forward". So. go forward.

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;133184 wrote:

I am sorry you feel that way. My mother raised me to tell nothing but the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

I think that if it is believed that "the objects of perception" are an illusion, it ought to be argued by those who believe such a thing. Why is the burden of proof put on those who do not think such a thing is true? I don't think it is the task of philosophy to prove something is not true that is not argued for. It is, it seems to me, prima-facie true that there are objects. If you have some argument(s) that there are not, then "bring 'em on".

It seems to me that the proposition, "there are objects" is presumed innocent until proven guilty. As in every court of law, the presumption of innocence has to be defeated by the prosecution. As the lawyers say, it is the prosecution that has to "go forward". So. go forward.

Would you admit that a concept of an object in order to be true has to fully apprehend its nature ? And if so how can you do such thing ?If not how can you say with absolute certainty that there is a factual object ? (address the bloody issue please)

---------- Post added 02-27-2010 at 10:09 AM ----------

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil. Albuquerque;133188 wrote:

Would you admit that a concept of an object in order to be true has to fully apprehend its nature ? And if so how can you do such thing ?If not how can you say with absolute certainty that there is a factual object ? (address the bloody issue please)

---------- Post added 02-27-2010 at 10:09 AM ----------

I don't pretend to say anything with absolute certainty. Proof of what? That there are no material objects? What is that proof? There are, I guess, bad arguments for it, though. Have you a good argument?

Philosophy Forum

On The Contrast Between Appearance And Reality

Quick Links

My Account

able2know